Back
2018 Supreme(Cal) 366
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
MIR DARA SHEKO, J.
Ruposhree Ganguli - Petitioners
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondents
WP 12390 (W) of 2017
Decided On : 04-01-2018
For the Petitioners: Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya, Mr. Anindya Bhattacharya.
For the Respondents: Mr. Nirmal Kumar Manna, Ms. Mitali Mukherjee, Dr. Madhusudan Saha Roy.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the eligibility criteria for B.Ed. admission as per NCTE guidelines and WBUTTEPA rules, emphasizing the requirement of at least fifty percent marks in the Bachelor's or Master's degree in specific subjects.
Headnote:
Education - B.Ed. Admission - NCTE Guidelines, WBUTTEPA Rules - 3.2 eligibility: Candidates with at least fifty percent marks either in the Bachelor'’ Degree and/or in the Master'’ Degree in Sciences/Social Services/Humanity, Bachelor'’ in Engineering or Technology with specialization in Science and Mathematics with 55% marks or any other qualification equivalent thereto, are eligible for admission to the programme. - [3.2 eligibility: Candidates with at least fifty percent marks either in the Bachelor'’ Degree and/or in the Master'’ Degree in Sciences/Social Services/Humanity, Bachelor'’ in Engineering or Technology with specialization in Science and Mathematics with 55% marks or any other qualification equivalent thereto] - The court discussed the eligibility criteria for B.Ed. admission as per NCTE guidelines and WBUTTEPA rules, emphasizing the requirement of at least fifty percent marks in the Bachelor's or Master's degree in specific subjects. The court interpreted the guidelines and rules to determine the eligibility of the petitioner and concluded that the petitioner met the criteria, thereby allowing the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner was denied registration for B.Ed. course by the University of Gour Banga due to not meeting the eligibility criteria of having 50% marks in the graduate course as prescribed by NCTE. The petitioner argued that she fulfilled the eligibility criteria and was unfairly deprived of her educational rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner met the eligibility criteria for B.Ed. admission as per NCTE guidelines and WBUTTEPA rules. The court concluded that the denial of registration by the University was arbitrary and in violation of the rules, thereby allowing the writ petition and directing the University and College authority to take necessary steps for the petitioner's registration and publication of her results.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of registration for B.Ed. course to the petitioner based on the eligibility criteria set by NCTE and WBUTTEPA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the NCTE guidelines and WBUTTEPA rules to determine the eligibility of the petitioner and concluded that she met the criteria, thereby allowing the writ petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition stands allowed, and the court directed the University and College authority to take all necessary steps for the petitioner's registration and publication of her results.
Affidavit of service filed today be kept on record.
Further hearing is concluded by giving opportunity to Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner, Ruposhree Ganguli once again, Dr. Madhusudan Saha Roy, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 2 to 5 and Mr. Manna, learned counsel representing the State respondent and the matter is taken up for delivery of judgment.
1. Mr. Bhattacharya in ventilating the grievance of the writ petitioner at the very inception submitted that the writ petitioner may be apologized for non-incorporation of the relevant documents with the main writ petition for want of proper instruction, which subsequently have been annexed with the affidavit-in-reply to meet the points taken out in the affidavit-in-opposition.
2. Mr. Bhattacharya submitted that the writ petitioner admittedly was appointed in Harishchandrapur Junior High School within the district of Malda in English subject. Further submitted that as the writ petitioner had no B.Ed. training, she submitted application in Vidyasagar Teachers’ Training College, Malda in the prescribed form duly forwarded by the Headmaster and countersigned by the District Inspector of Schools (SE) and after depositing the requisite fees for the first semester, she continued her training course under said college, which was affiliate under the University of Gour Banga, Malda.
3. The grievance is that before examination of first semester when the college sent the documents for registration of the candidature under the University, the registration was declined by the University of Gour Banga on the plea that the writ petitioner did not fulfill the criteria of having 50% marks in graduate course, as prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education, shortly known as NCTE.
4. Mr. Bhattacharya argued that had there been any grievance as against the candidature, objection could have been raised by the college before admission in the B.Ed. course. Therefore, while the candidate was allowed to be admitted and she was allowed to continue her classes in first semester, then before examination of the first semester, the declinement by the University deprived the petitioner of her educational right in also violation of principle of natural justice.
5. During course of argument Mr. Bhattacharya invited attention of this Court to the non-eligibility list as well as the eligibility list for the year 2016 published by the University of Gour Banga, wherein the name of the writ petitioner was available in the eligibility list. Argued further that as per rules and regulation for admission in B.Ed. course published under the West Bengal University of Teachers’ Training Education Planning and Administration, shortly known as WBUTTEPA, the writ petitioner despite having more than 50% marks in Honours degree, the University illegally declined registration of the candidature of the writ petitioner. That apart, Mr. Bhattacharya invited attention to the text made out in paragraph 11 of the affidavit-in-reply expressing the grievance for discrimination, which according to him, was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
6. Mr. Manna, learned counsel representing the State however fairly submitted that if law permits, then any relief can be attributed to the writ petitioner, but by virtue of developing the case through affidavit-in-reply, the writ petitioner cannot expect any relief if in the writ petition the assertions are in want of coupled with documents.
7. Dr. Madhusudan Saha Roy, learned counsel representing the University in the tune of the text of the affidavit-in-opposition restricted his submission pursuant to the circular no. 456(14)-Edn(U)/1U-23/12 dated 11th May, 2012 issued by the Government of West Bengal, Higher Education Department, University Branch informing all concerned that to get admission in B.Ed. course, 50% marks in graduation would be required and that training course would have to be taken only thr
